181–190 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only half of a Twitter. That sounds like a joke, but honestly, it's not. $20B is absolutely nothing compared to the costs of not taking immediate action on climate change.
Do you work at the press office of the construction company? 20B is absolutely nothing? Holy crap
I feel like the fact that this plant coming online will raise the rates for Georgia electricity is basically the death-knell of nuclear power, at least in it's current form of large central power plants[1]. By comparison, solar and wind seem like classic "worse is better." They don't run all the time, but they're cheap and relatively simple, if you screw up a unit then you get no power from that one unit, but the nat…
https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/325
Also, unlike many "Red Dawn" fantasies, the US isn't getting successfully invaded anytime in the near (or distant) future. Mexico, Canada, and the islands of the Caribbean are neither inclined nor capable of such an action, and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans make one hell of a moat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But at a grid scale we don't need a single installation to provide continuous power and it wouldn't necessarily make sense for it to do so. Load is not uniform across the day and other sources may be cheaper at any particular moment.
Weather patterns can be very large. So essentially all installations in one area will act same way. And we are not really doing any intercontinental grids with large enough capacities to move whole demand. Or overprovisioning in each area so that also other areas can be covered...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LCOE doesn't account for storage, backup and grid costs, please don't use it as a go to indicator that renewables are cheap. How much offshore capacity was added in the last 3 years in Germany? Zero? Or am I mistaken?
Energy grids tend to converge to LCOE of the producers. Just look at the average prices before the current crisis haphazardly replacing Russian gas with alternatives. We are also talking about the 70-90% case here, for that case no storage is needed. That is the point. A stupid solution, which is cheaper than nuclear, is simply burning hydrogen in turbines like todays peaker plants. We are not at the point where it i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market should deploy the cheapest grid possible that can produce emission free energy. We should be using those market forces. The problem that we have is that governments steps in to subsidize grid stability. Industries and citizens in general do no accept a government that allows for black outs, and they also do not accept a government that allow the energy price to reach the natural market price when supply is…
We are. Marginal cost + paying for CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi... You are missing the time factor. Supplying 90% means that a vast majority of time they fulfill 100% and the expensive storage is not required. All based on the marginal price market Europe employs. The storage would still be needed, but it is not the marginal cost and maybe storage is not the right path? Maybe it i…
Sweden is a prime example of a country that is paying the cost of stabilizing the grid for the rest of the continent. They could have had one of the cheapest energy grid in EU thanks the the large stable production from nuclear and hydro, but because of how the EU system is setup the opposite occurred. The result is the highest inflation rate in EU coupled with a significant hit to the economy. Germany in contrast is using the profits they historically gained by using cheap natural gas from Russia and injected billions to their industry in the form of energy subsidizes, sheltering their economy from the same fate. Who cares if the energy prices reaches well above $1/kWh if the government foot the bill?
Massive subsidizes and huge difference between marginal cost and actually price is not a free market. There is nothing free about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh stop with the strawman attacks and wake up. You're being fed bs by your side just as much as the oil industry feeds their "constituents" lies. Big Green energy is backed by massive amounts of money and political interests just like big oil and it's not even close to replacing fossil fuels as a main energy source. All you need to do is ask Europe how things are going now that they don't have natural gas coming in f…
Green energy does not have to be able to do 100% of everything to be useful. It is not as simple as CAN Vs CANT. And it won't suddenly flip from CANT to CAN in an instant.
The issue here is everyone knows green energy can't provide enough energy on it's own and yet governments and sjw's every seem to think it's a good idea to pull the rug out of the average middle class person and force them onto green power by taxation, social pressure etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only half of a Twitter. That sounds like a joke, but honestly, it's not. $20B is absolutely nothing compared to the costs of not taking immediate action on climate change.
Do you work at the press office of the construction company? 20B is absolutely nothing? Holy crap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worse things have happened than a $4 rate increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Hmmmmm I don't see what famine has to do with nuclear power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool. Would you like to let us know where all the other materials are mined from and how environmentally friendly that is? I suggest you look up nickel mining.
LiFePO4 batteries don't use nickel either.
You also didn't address the recyclable part. From what I can see LiFePO4 batteries are supposedly easier to recycle but I'm going to take that with a grain of salt. Almost all the things they've told us are being recycled just get dumped in the ocean in China. I have my doubts that anyone is actually recycling these batteries effectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Green energy does not have to be able to do 100% of everything to be useful. It is not as simple as CAN Vs CANT. And it won't suddenly flip from CANT to CAN in an instant.
You're strawmanning again. The issue here is everyone knows green energy can't provide enough energy on it's own and yet governments and sjw's every seem to think it's a good idea to pull the rug out of the average middle class person and force them onto green power by taxation, social pressure etc.
Although I guess that the political situation in the USA precludes a rational policy. Every argument turns into a culture war sooner or later. The opposition is criticised for moral weakness (child slave battery) whilst your own side are blameless victims.